MU Cerebellum

"Writers, especially when they act in a body and with one direction, have great influence on the public mind." -Edmund Burke

Monday, March 06, 2006

Gov. Round took away women's "abortion rights" - the fight is on!

Today is a day for pro-lifers to celebrate: Today, South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds signed a piece of legislation that would ban almost all abortions in South Dakota.

In the Wall Street Journal article Rounds said:

"In the history of the world, the true test of a civilization is how well people treat the most vulnerable and most helpless in their society. The sponsors and supporters of this bill believe that abortion is wrong because unborn children are the most vulnerable and most helpless persons in our society. I agree with them."

Amen to that. This is where change will happen - in the states. Let's hope that other governors will follow Gov. Rounds' example.

It will be interesting (not to mention amusing) to see how batty the Left goes in the next few weeks. But more importantly, Round's action has helped further set the stage for the bitter fight over abortion that will continue to dominate the political arena. My hope is that the bitter fight will end with the overturn of the sloppy, unconstitutional "precedent" Roe v. Wade.


  • At 10:34 PM, Blogger J. Michael said…

    from what i've read, SD is a state with just 1 active and legal abortion clinic anyway, which suggests abortion isn't much of an issue anyway. when this does go to judicial review, i won't be shocked with an upholding that's specific only to that state.

    on affirmation, the right wing powers that be had better be ready to fund and staff orphanages and homes to take in every child that isn't wanted, even if that means we don't get to invade Iran this month

  • At 11:01 PM, Blogger Ego said…

    Was your post just a mental placebo to assure you that abortion "isn't much of an issue anyway"? Even if it "just" South Dakota, isn't this a start? Though pro-lifers' goal is to get Roe v. Wade overturned, it would be unrealistic to start there. What happens at the state level is the first step, and a smart one at that.

    There is no such thing as a child who is not wanted - and I am proof. I was born to an unwed mother in a foreign country where children out of wedlock and the women who had them were considered socially unacceptable. In addition, abortion was not an option - even though many still had them illegally. Though I don't know the exact situation my birth mother was in, I was a wanted child. I was wanted before I was born. My current family filled out adoption papers 5 months before I was even conceived. They wanted a little girl, and they got me.

    Iran is completely irrelevant. What does it have to do with abortion or the fact the right wing powers would have to fund and staff these supposed orphanages you speak of?

  • At 12:27 AM, Blogger J. Michael said…

    Progress is just that, progress. The solution/end is still yet to show itself.

    i happen to agree with SD not even allowing for abortion in cases of rape and incest. My high school morality teacher invited a woman to talk to us, and her story was that she was adopted, and found out after meeting her biological mother that the original plan was abortion, not adoption. My question was answered, why should the child suffer for what the rapist did? The answer: it shouldn't.

    Congratulations, you've made it this far, you're doing well in your life.

    Come off it, it's no secret that the government would rather spend billions on foreign war than domestic policy. If abortion finally is going to be outlawed, adoption agencies and orphanages and foundling hospitals are going to need money to handle the inevitable influx of children, unless willfully and deliberately giving a child up for adoption becomes illegal too

  • At 8:37 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    You won't see a constitutional exception made for South Dakota.

  • At 4:45 PM, Blogger Christopher said…

    Why do we assume that orphanages and adoption agencies would be overworked? How do we know that the people who work in those types of places, who chose this vocation for a reason, would love nothing more than to be overworked, because that would mean that there are more children being born? Maybe those in Europe who have steadily seen a population decline would love to see more children, especially Christian ones to combat the growing Muslim population (note: this is not just a statement to stir up people's anger, and have them start quoting Vatican II. It is meant to say that there is an increasing Muslim influence in all of Europe, and maybe we actually do need more Christians over there. Ok, this is gonna get me in trouble, but it needs to be said.)

  • At 11:48 PM, Blogger Ego said…

    Don't worry if you get yourself "in trouble," Christopher. THat means you are saying something worthwhile! You make some great points.

  • At 1:27 PM, Blogger J. Michael said…

    put two and two together please: the existing orphanages and adoption agencies will be the ones taking in every child that grandma and grandpa don't take off the parents hands. take one look at the up to date abortion rate. it is over 120,000 per day, well over 1 million abortions performed yearly.

    now abortion is made illegal, except to save the mother's life (exactly the way catholicism says it should by the way). those 120,000 would be abortions are now going to have to be born. just because abortions are illegal doesn't mean they want the kid, and with the only legal option adoption, it won't take long for adoption agencies to be as overcrowded as a typical american prison.

    what's that mean? that means we're going to need money for food for these kids, more staff, and more buildings to house them, and educate them. why educate? because not every kid is going to get adopted right away and america has compulsory education.

    funny that you mention muslims in europe, christopher, and vatican II in the same breath, because Lumen Gentium #16, one of the Vatican II documents, says that Muslims are saved. my point is that at least from a true catholic view, there is no problem with the population of muslims anywhere. the fundamentalist groups that engage in terrorism are probably excluded since Catholicism doesn't like fundamentalism or murder.

  • At 2:36 PM, Blogger Christopher said…

    I purposefully used Muslims and Vatican II in the same sentence precisely because of what Lumen Gentium says. The exact wording of the decree is that Muslims are included in the "propositum salutis", or the design of salvation. The Incarnation, Passion and Death and Resurrection of Christ was accomplished for all men, and this plan includes Muslims as well. It does not say that Muslims are saved, it says that Muslims are given the opportunity to be saved. Everyone was given the chance to be saved, but through rejection of Christ and his Church, some have lost the opportunity for that grace. Furthermore, Thomas Aquinas teaches that only those who have been baptized are truly saved, but he also makes the distinction between Baptism by water and Baptism by desire. And it seems difficult to account for the Koran when it says, "Death to the Infidels," among other things that are increasingly difficult to account for. But above all else, God is the judge, and neither you nor I can determine whom he chooses to save.

    Now back to the abortion issue. Did it ever occur to you (the plural you, as in whomever is reading this) that abortions occur precisely because it is legal and easily attainable? Abortion and extramarital sex are probably a lot more interrelated than we realize, since because of this convenient out, people are more willing to engage in sexual acts. If people are ignoring one Church teaching (extramarital sex) they would probably be more likely to engage in another (abortion). So when you make all those claims regarding overflowing orphanages, perhaps if people were forced to accept the consequences of their unbridled passion, they may not be as likely to have sex.

  • At 10:16 PM, Anonymous bornin84 said…

    well christopher, it is silly and simplistic to say "oh, maybe if people were just willing to accept the burden, there'd be no problem" and it is further demonstrative of a lack of willingness to go 100% on an issue by the right. why do people get abortions? the people that get them don't want the kid. i'd love to say what i really think and say that they're people who make a really dumb choice for a great deal of reasons, but that would do nothing to address what will have to be done for the children. and frankly, following church teaching isn't a solution to a problem, basic social history is proof that extramarital and premarital sex issues are nothing new.

    so that's still going to leave the country with what i said before, if grandma and grandpa aren't going to take the kid for the parents, we know the state already has the authority and duty to protect children. they must also then provide for them until they're adopted or of age to live by themselves. that means food and shelter, medecine, and education.

  • At 10:10 AM, Blogger Christopher said…

    Fair enough, bornin. I have no problem saying that the government should provide for the children, and I also recognize that all people don't necessarily follow Church teaching, nor will all people ever follow Church teaching. So overall, I think we're in agreement that people often take the easy road out and get an abortion, rather than owning up to their actions. As an aside, I think people often overlook the fact that abortion is a million dollar industry (perhaps billion?), and more often than not the doctor performing the abortion is not doing so because he cares for the patient, but because he wants money.

  • At 5:03 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

  • At 5:14 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Keep up the good work »


Post a Comment

<< Home